* Alexander Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-05 19:36]:
> I'm trying to move an iterative server (a small multiplayer card game)
> from using select() to poll() (BTW is it a good idea at all?)
yes, it is a good idea. poll is easier to use and as a bonus a bit more
efficient.
> So it is important for me that none of the reads/writes/accepts block.
so use nonblocking sockets...
int flags;
if ((flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFL, 0)) == -1)
fatal("fnctl F_GETFL");
flags |= O_NONBLOCK;
if ((flags = fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, flags)) == -1)
fatal("fnctl F_SETFL");
> My question is, what events should I poll() ? With select() it is easy -
> 1) read/write returns > 0 means ok
> 2) read/write returns = 0 means connection closed
> 3) read/write returns < 0 means connection interrupted
that is true no matter what.
actually your case #3 is not completely - on error they return -1 and
only -1, with errno set.
> If I poll() for POLLIN/POLLOUT, will the read/write ever block?
could, unless you use nonblocking sockets.
> Do I need to poll() for POLLHUP and/or POLLERR to detect
> closed or interrupted connections or is POLLIN enough and it
> is same as 2) and 3) above?
the latter.
bgpd's session.c session_main() and dispatch_msg might be worth a read.
--
BS Web Services, http://www.bsws.de/
OpenBSD-based Webhosting, Mail Services, Managed Servers, ...
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)
